[AT&T] called the offer its best-ever. It estimated monthly savings between $40 and $100 for a family of four. A plan that includes 10GB of data, unlimited minutes and unlimited texting would cost $160 per month.

Similar offers are available for $260 per month at Verizon Wireless, at least $220 per month at Sprint, and $140 per month at T-Mobile (TMUS), according to information on each company's website.

_________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

That is amusing. But I think the US unit is operated completely separately. And with the MetroPCS buyout of TMobile, I think the plan includes DT divesting itself of the company. Which is also amusing since it finally seems to be making some headway._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

For the record, the cheapest unlimited data service I've found here in GB offered by T-Mobile is 21 quid, that would be something like 30 dollars. So there. Only reason I can think of for this is that there is so much more area to cover in the US, so basically the urbanites are cross-subsidizing Cleetus' and Liane's mobile bill. Maybe smaller companies that focus on the population centers offer cheaper contracts?

I've never used one of the local smaller companies, but I can't imagine they can charge much less. They still have to provide a lot of infrastructure for the coverage, and they have fewer customers to absorb the costs.

Honestly, I think the main reason for the high costs is because they can. Customers are willing to pay the prices they charge, so there is no incentive to lower prices. TMobile, and in my opinion to a lesser degree Sprint, are trying to compete on cost, but only because they have little choice. They need customers.

So far I don't trust SoftBank/Sprint. There have been no public strategic moves that I've seen. If their plan is to maintain the status quo regarding Sprint's prior strategies, then I don't want to see them buy TMobile. On the other hand, if they were to go with a <$50/mo, no contract 5GB/mo plan, I might take their "combined competition" more serious. At a minimum, SoftBank would need to match what TMobile is already offering._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

*nod* agreed. Around here T-Mobile (and T-Online, etc) have the advantage of being the "default" carrier and ISP for a lot of users because they used to be the only ones allowed to provide the services back in the days. Obviously things have changed, and new users (e.g. the younger generations) tend to not sign up with them, but as long as they have their immense user base over 50 there's no need for them to worry about their market share, so they don't have any incentive to compete.

I do find it fascinating to see the situation in the US being the exact inverse, with T-Mobile being the underdog and AT&T being the default._________________"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

Actually, Verizon is the "default" for mobile. They have the largest customer base with ATT being #2. Also, ATT isn't the ATT of old (one of its monopoly breakup offshoots bought the name and decided to keep it). It is kind of amusing to see how much has reformed, given the current lack of meaningful competition.

Personally, I'd put all mobile bandwidth into a holding company designed to maintain and improve infrastructure, including R&D. Any company wanting to use bandwidth would have to pay for usage._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

Personally, I'd put all mobile bandwidth into a holding company designed to maintain and improve infrastructure, including R&D. Any company wanting to use bandwidth would have to pay for usage.

I think they're sort of trying to do that around here with all sorts of formerly state-monopolised infrastructure, but it rarely works out because either the holding company turns out to be a daughter company of the former monopolist, or everyone increases their end-user prices citing "infrastructure costs". It'd be neat in principle though, I'd love to see it done properly somewhere so we'd have a reference implementation to get it right sometime in the future._________________"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

Obviously the holding company would have to be independent. Transparency in the billing process would be necessary. The "access" cost would be a set, public price. Anything above that would be each company's cost of providing service.

Since I don't need most of the crap the carriers offer, it could reduce costs significantly._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

Obviously the holding company would have to be independent. Transparency in the billing process would be necessary. The "access" cost would be a set, public price. Anything above that would be each company's cost of providing service.

Since I don't need most of the crap the carriers offer, it could reduce costs significantly.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure we'll ever see something like this in practice, but that's precisely how it should be._________________"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

I'm not sure we'll ever see something like this in practice, but that's precisely how it should be.

Certainly not in the US. The carriers would give up just enough to avoid losing control. I'm hoping in the next 10 years or so, mobile access becomes a commodity. Maybe Google can figure out a free version the others are forced to try competing with (I'd pay for no ad interference)._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.